Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

This has been an interesting discussion. In a sense, at the back of this debate lies the fact that the vast majority of voters do not spend all their time worrying about voting systems. For that matter, they do not spend much of their time worrying about party politics or politics in any shape or form. In July, I knocked on a door to ask someone to vote Labour in an election. He said, ““I am never, ever going to vote Labour again in my life because you just increased VAT.”” When I said, ““But we haven't,”” he replied, ““You're the Government aren't you?”” I said, ““No, we're not,”” and he said, ““Well, you were earlier this year.”” I suppose that is a version of the argument that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats use all the time. There is a serious point. Sometimes, when it comes to explaining voting systems, it is not so much that voters are not bright enough to understand, but simply that their eyes glaze over, because they think, ““Why on earth are you bothering to talk to me about this?””—[Hon. Members: ““Hear hear!””] Listen: I am one of those who wants to reform the system. As we lead up to the referendum, it will be difficult to provide the kind of information that most voters would admit they ought to have in their heads before they vote. That could quite simply be because voters are not always interested, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was absolutely right in saying that it is very difficult to arrive at a truly impartial presentation of the facts. From a theological point of view, that is true of nearly everything. We always underestimate how much our subjective opinions influence how we interpret and present the facts, and even what we choose to call a fact as opposed to something else. Certainly, that is true of the BBC. If the referendum were on the European Union or the Lisbon treaty, there would be even more excitement, and equal levels of misunderstanding and distrust of the system. The other aspect is that many voters simply do not believe anything that any politician says, so why on earth would they believe what is presented in the referendum? There are specific matters on which there is enormous potential for quarrel in the material that the Electoral Commission will present. Let us say that the commission wanted to describe in its literature the advantages of a first-past-the-post system—the right hon. Member for Wokingham said that it could be presented as the person who gets the most votes wins. I would guess that every single one of those advantages would be disputed by someone on the other side of the argument. How on earth can the commission possibly arrive at a set of advantages or disadvantages of either system in the information? Similarly, some would argue that the alternative vote could lead to more hung Parliaments. That is highly contentious, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) would argue that that is a proven fact. I urge caution regarding the quantity of information that the commission will provide. Interestingly enough—it may not be interesting to hon. Members, but it is to me—I had lunch today with some Chilean Senators and Members of Parliament who have accompanied President Pinera on his visit. They wanted to know exactly what alternative vote system was being proposed. They are experienced politicians and have just changed their electoral system, so I thought that they would know what the alternative vote system was. In their heads, they were working on the assumption that there would be a second round of voting rather than an instant run-off, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, because if nobody gets 50% in the first round of Chilean presidential elections, there is a second round. Notwithstanding that, the Electoral Commission has made it clear that there is a need for information. Some of its findings from earlier this year are enlightening. Its report states:"““The vast majority had no knowledge of AV and did not know how to vote under the system or how candidates would win a seat…A few people who were more interested and engaged had found out about AV when they heard about the referendum. Some people, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, said they 'had heard of' the system but did not know how it worked. They assumed it to be the same as the proportional representation systems used in elections there.””" Of course, that makes the point that it is difficult to use a phrase such as, ““The system used in parliamentary elections now,”” because the system for Scotland parliamentary elections is not the same. We cannot simply refer to ““the present system”” because the system is different in Wales. For that matter, some have referred to the system for electing the London Mayor, but that is different again, because voters have only a second preference vote rather than a fully alternative vote. There is also a problem in relation to the presentation of materials. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the weathered eye—or perhaps the battered eye—of politicians can sometimes be useful. We are used to decrying politicians and saying how terrible they are. Everybody wants there to be no more politicians ever again, but we do add value in some regards.